Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
Why are people forgetting that Syria has a government and is a sovereign country, how can we conduct air strikes without the Syrian governments permission?
What's that table got to with Iraq ? Or, for that matter, casualties caused by RAF piloted bombers ? The answer to my original point is zero.
The table has got to do with the Syrian government and was in response to LoneRanger's point. The clue is that I quoted LoneRanger before I posted it.
The link to the Iraq Body Count project, which you have ignored, is in response to your post.
It is possible to deal with more than one point in a post.
I ignored the article about the Iraq Body Count, as soon as I read that the organisation responsible for the counting have previous for under and over counting. Not that reliable really are they.
You ignored my response to you and then moaned that I hadn't responded to your point.
Most of the criticism of them is that they undercount civilian casualties...
From all I can see, the little weasel-word "reported" is the only thing holding together the flimsy suggestion that there have been no reported civilian deaths as a result of the UK's bombing in Iraq.
Nevertheless, somewhere like Raqqa won't be the same as Iraqi positions, for reasons outlined by PragueAddick above.
Ground troops work better than bombing. Terrorists will immediately conduct all activity in underground tunnels and densely populated areas to maximise the civilian casualties. (As they already have been doing, but its not reported on much).
The western nations have zero long term strategy either, which worries me. In the short term keeping Assad is probably the best of several bad choices, with a scheduled handover to the people within a number of years.
The most cynical, inept, hypocritical and counter-productive military gesture of modern times.
Our policy on Syria changes with the wind and this latest version will only create another generation of matyrs, heroes and jihadists and pour more petrol on the fire of a deadly and chaotic civil war of which we have little or no understanding or control.
Simultaneously banning UK citizens from leaving for Syria, bombing the Syrian people in situ and then begrudgingly accepting thousands of refugees and economic migrants from Syria to the EU in desperation is the politics of the mad house.
If this really is a war worth fighting and a war capable of being won, them let's at least fight it with our meagre forces decimated by defence cut after defence cut not just drop bombs on civilians from a great height and pretend that will make any positive difference. Will the IS/ISIL/ISIS/ Daesh fighters all be wearing day-glo jackets identifying themselves as evil decapitating terrorists as featured in the Daily Mail ?
Its a deep seated ideology and a fanaticism maturing for decades and ripened after the chaos caused by western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will it not be defeated with bombs.
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
posting without reading. I think we have to accept that some civilians are likely to perish, and that is extremely regrettable but I'm certain we'd go out of our way to ensure as much as possible that it doesn't happen. We are there to strike at terrorist targets, legitimate targets. Did the bombers in Paris attack terrorist targets? Were they attacking say a military base and some civilians unfortunately got killed? No, they deliberately attacked civilian targets. Whta we are doing is completely justifiable to me.
To turn our back on a direct request for help in bombing Daesh in Syria by France would be the wrong thing to do an alliance formed over decades and history fighting together.
Now Is the time to strike these bstds hard
So we've effectively been peer pressured into this decision to save face with France? Who were obviously right with us when we went into Iraq.
Dropping bombs on an urban population will lead to many civilian deaths, and if you don't wipe out the whole family then there will be thousands of bitter Syrians who will then go and join ISIS.
It was always eventually going to come down to military action due to the nature of the beast but political arrangements need to be sorted first to unite the world against them and to cut of their supplies. Because now this looks like a Western Invasion in the middle east = exactly what Isis want.
Peer pressured is your interpretation of what NLA said was a request by an ally, hardly the same. The whole world should be involved in this on some level, this is a group whose aim is an apocalyptic war. We have the option to give them their end, and we should exercise it.
in terms of bombing population centres, which we haven't yet, but may do. Take raqqa as an example as we've just seen the tunnels etc so we know what their tactics will be. Do you really think that bombing it will make Christian and Shia people (if they've not been killed by daesh already) stand up and join daesh to fight the western invader? Really? I wouldn't say that is possible personally.
This is a horrible mess, that among many other reasons we have been partially responsible for creating. Adopting the CIA style tactics of encouraging civil unrest we put Syrian people in the way of assad's gas and barrel bombs, and in turn left the country weak and divided enough to allow daesh a strong foothold. By pulling back now we're leaving them to it, when we have the capability to end it.
We shouldn't have been meddling in the first place, but this is now, and we are here.
I'm against the bombing or well was as we're doing it now.
I feel that bombing and only bombing isn't going to solve the issue. All it will do is add to the ever frightful skys over Syria. I get told these bombs are precise. Well these bombs better be more accurate than the Americans precision bomb. One was aimed at a Taliban controlled area and managed to blow up a hospital in the city of Kunduz instead.
So innocent people will die.
There is no long term plan as how we then drive back isis on the ground. The US have been bombing for nearly a year and ISIS have become stronger since then.
We are relying on another set of fighters who have jihadists and extremists as part of their ranks and who might not want to even get involved. Maybe the extremist part is not a problem as we keep arming Saudi Arabia. And anyway why would this free Syria army want to fight this battle? they're against Assad (wasn't he the bad guy??) and his regime who the Russians support (and the americans covertly) and we probably do now as Assad fights against Isis.
There will be more refugees as houses will be hit by the bombing. (oh don't worry Turkey will take them. yeah, we trust them) And what of Turkey? the country who is being fast tracked into the EU. we cant fight them, though it's known they pay isis for oil.
It's a fucking mess down there and unless we have actually got a plan and a well thought out one at that. (not just say, yeah bomb em a bit then free Syrian army or some other army will clear up the rest) we will be sucked into this black hole that will take many lives and add to the discredit that the western countries already have in the middle east. It's all too late now though. I want us to fight them I just feel that bombing is a thoughtless approach. We need to go all out or have some allies who will. Libyia, Iraq. We seem to be making the same mistakes over and over again. Don't doubt though these missiles will hit some targets in the next few weeks and the media/conservatives will bang on about it as a told you so. I hope they're right and I'm wrong. I just cant help but see all the above and more as a reason why we need to act differently to what the government has proposed. and the history of previous doesn't help me change my mind.
How many if any civilians are going to get killed, how long and how much will it cost to put the country back together?
According to an RAF pilot on BBC Breakfast this am, they have achieved over 400 missile strikes against IS (not bombs we're not dropping them) in Iraq with no civilian casulties reported. The brimstone missiles have a small payload but precise (99%) accuracy. Especially useful against fast-moving vehicles that others - the USA included - don't have the ability to hit accurately.
We've already started dropping Paveway bombs overnight. They may be laser guided, they may have a higher degree of accuracy than indiscriminate non-guided bombs, but they are still bombs.
The paveway bombs dropped last night were targeting oil refineries, not just dropped at random over the city.
I didn't say that were dropped at random. I was just correcting a factually incorrect statement made.
If bombing Syria is a trigger for people in Western Europe to be radicalised than those people shouldn't have been here in the first place (Something a few have been saying for a while). And the more the Corbynistas (Cheers for that GH) go on about it, the more it gives em carte blanche to do it
Just waiting for the next attack in the UK or France etc (Which was gonna happen anyway IMO) and then for the "Well, you can't blame em can you" from the Corbynistas (Cheers again for that GH)
No, certainly not, I just don't think it's the absolute that this particular placard makes it out to be. The concept of virginity is an absolute, the concept of peace in this sense is absolutely not. Surely that's fair enough?
Apart from being a symptom of the modern obsession to get everything into a soundbite that will potentially go viral, which is dreadful and leads to lazy opinion forming. I believe we are bombing to rid the world of an evil scourge, but that's not going to lead to peace - it's going to get back to pre daesh in Syria and Iraq - hardly 'peace'.
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
posting without reading. I think we have to accept that some civilians are likely to perish, and that is extremely regrettable but I'm certain we'd go out of our way to ensure as much as possible that it doesn't happen. We are there to strike at terrorist targets, legitimate targets. Did the bombers in Paris attack terrorist targets? Were they attacking say a military base and some civilians unfortunately got killed? No, they deliberately attacked civilian targets. Whta we are doing is completely justifiable to me.
Why are people banging on about killing civilians ? I think I'm right in saying that all this time we've been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, no innocent civilians have been killed.
posting without reading. I think we have to accept that some civilians are likely to perish, and that is extremely regrettable but I'm certain we'd go out of our way to ensure as much as possible that it doesn't happen. We are there to strike at terrorist targets, legitimate targets. Did the bombers in Paris attack terrorist targets? Were they attacking say a military base and some civilians unfortunately got killed? No, they deliberately attacked civilian targets. Whta we are doing is completely justifiable to me.
But that is the problem when you decide to take up a military fight against a 'movement' and not a state army. It's very very messy and rarely works.
There will now be even more innocent civilian deaths... These new ones will be at the british governments hands. I'm not saying they're intentional but airstrikes make them inevitable.
Do we just count all those innocents as collateral in a need to destroy small parts of one threat? (A big threat of course)
It's a difficult argument in my head and I’m stuck asking 'Is it the right decision for right now?'
I guess only time will tell.
My fear is that this will increase the indoctrination rates and fuel the radicalisation of those seeing innocent casualties increase at allied forces hands.
People will want to inflict damage upon us in turn for innocents being killed.
Propaganda will paint us as purposefully massacring Syrian people. ISIS will no doubt say it's because we were targetting all Muslim.
This will in turn raise the threat against the UK.
More people in the UK will become fearful of innocent muslim people and target muslims and anyone who 'looks' muslim will be at risk... It's already happening.
It's my opinion that we have joined the war too late. That is pig head porker and his predecessors fault.
We and other allies should have stepped in when Assad started using chemical warfare against his own people.
We mourn those 130 killed in Paris weeks ago while thousands of civilians just as innocent are killed in Syria by ISIS, by Assad and by those participating in airstrikes now...
ISIS claim the Paris attacks killing innocents were for their religious cause.
The british government claim their killing of 'targets' that will result in innocent deaths are in order to stop ISIS... either way innocents die.
When you really think about it, the world is F'd up beyond belief right now.
My main worry is the extent of support that Daesh have. Although not exactly state sponsored, they were originally funded with billions of dollars from Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Supplies were safe routed through Turkey and all of these nations are supposed to be our allies?
Once established Daesh then began to sell their oil … but to whom - presumably people who are in cahoots with them.
We may be able to select targets and bomb them, but we can’t wipe away an ideology that is shared by so many. The whole thing is a complete mess. I’d rather see our money spent securing our borders and getting to grips with the enemy within.
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
My main worry is the extent of support that Daesh have. Although not exactly state sponsored, they were originally funded with billions of dollars from Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Supplies were safe routed through Turkey and all of these nations are supposed to be our allies?
Once established Daesh then began to sell their oil … but to whom - presumably people who are in cahoots with them.
We may be able to select targets and bomb them, but we can’t wipe away an ideology that is shared by so many. The whole thing is a complete mess. I’d rather see our money spent securing our borders and getting to grips with the enemy within.
Agree.
If you have a small wasp nest in your attic and a huge wasps nest in a tree at the end of your garden or in your neighbors garden, you deal with the one in your attic first then worry about the one outside.
(apologies for over simplifying this)
Less innocents are likely to die that way and it should be a cheaper way to protect the British people.
As I said before we should have got involved when Assad used chemical weapons... at least then we would have had boots on the ground to help stop ISIS get into Syria so easily.
The other option would have been to not get involved at all.
I was disappointed with the vote. Not because I am a pacifist. I very strongly gave my view on a recent thread that something has to be done about IS – basically they need to be wiped out as they pose such a massive threat they can’t be ignored. The problem is that we react to an outrage against humanity, which Paris undoubtedly was, without thinking the issue through properly.
I watched question time on the BBC last week, where Ken Livingstone was advocating getting troops in to remove IS. He understands it is the only way. But he also understands that how it is done is important. We need a global reaction, not a western one. He made the point about how linking our interests with oil helps the IS radicalisation process. He was attacked on the panel, for the ‘left’s insistance’ that it is our fault when it is the fault of the terrorists. Taking this stance is dangerous. We all know the terrorists are evil and IS manipulates, but we have to understand and learn. This means that the nations comprising the force that removes IS is important, if we are looking at finding a lasting peace beyond any conflict.
The goals of the mission are incredibly important. Are the Russians our allies or enemies in this? In a fight against IS, one ally has recently shot down a plane belonging to another! We have an aspiration to get rid of IS and Assad. But, no matter how despotic Assad is, can the rival religions factions that despise each other and make up Syria come together? Have we not learned from Iraq?
So we have voted for air strikes. This time next year we will still be bombing Syria – probably creating more terrorists and being no nearer to the solution. We have to do this properly! The vote is tokenism anyway, as we were bombing IRAQ. We could have upped our output there and the Americans could have stepped a proportion of IRAQ down to compensate, and deployed it to Syria. It is all about posturing, and not about substance. And if anybody took the trouble to listen, that is Corbyn's point!
There will now be even more innocent civilian deaths... These new ones will be at the british governments hands. I'm not saying they're intentional but airstrikes make them inevitable.
Do we just count all those innocents as collateral in a need to destroy small parts of one threat? (A big threat of course)
It's a difficult argument in my head and I’m stuck asking 'Is it the right decision for right now?'
I guess only time will tell.
My fear is that this will increase the indoctrination rates and fuel the radicalisation of those seeing innocent casualties increase at allied forces hands.
People will want to inflict damage upon us in turn for innocents being killed.
Propaganda will paint us as purposefully massacring Syrian people. ISIS will no doubt say it's because we were targetting all Muslim.
This will in turn raise the threat against the UK.
More people in the UK will become fearful of innocent muslim people and target muslims and anyone who 'looks' muslim will be at risk... It's already happening.
It's my opinion that we have joined the war too late. That is pig head porker and his predecessors fault.
We and other allies should have stepped in when Assad started using chemical warfare against his own people.
We mourn those 130 killed in Paris weeks ago while thousands of civilians just as innocent are killed in Syria by ISIS, by Assad and by those participating in airstrikes now...
ISIS claim the Paris attacks killing innocents were for their religious cause.
The british government claim their killing of 'targets' that will result in innocent deaths are in order to stop ISIS... either way innocents die.
When you really think about it, the world is F'd up beyond belief right now.
Any innocent deaths are completely the responsibility of Daesh. The blood is on their hands.
Hilary Bens main point is that this country and his Labour movement has always stood against "fascism"----the enslavement of people,the rape of women,the execution of gays, the utter barbarity of this shit,the UN asking for intervention---------------------------- if not for this then when ?
When ?
for Paris ? or the 30 Brits in Egypt ? or for the 10,000 executed by these scum?
When ?
Its ok to "intervene" when we send millions of pounds in "aid" but its "Imperialist" if we attack a Death Cult !!
we wont be safer in the Uk for bombing Syria--thats just horse shit, but every Jihadi ISIS murderer killed by the RAF is one less scum bag on this planet and thats a good thing end of.
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
It is a way we can defeat them quickly. They do not respond rationally. Focus on a battle they think they can win because it is written, but we know they can't because what is written is a load of bo****ks. Set them up for their great victory and wipe them off the planet. Use their stupidity and ignorance against them! But we (and we means the rest of the world) have to do a lot of it using ground forces. Whether a good one or not - that is at least a plan to get rid of them. Yesterday's vote was not even significant beyond our shores!
And there you have it, not some bloke sat behind his keyboard in his safe western home, and think he knows best, or a politician making a war mongering speech and at the same time making a case for Labour leadership, but a fella who has been there and done it and knows what he is talking about. Still wanna bomb them?
It's a compelling argument, well put too. I agree we are playing into their hands with this supposed apocalyptic battle, it is what they want - but who says it has to be world ending?? Only them. They believe in a prophecy that is false we need to remember that.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.
I think there is some confusion, ignited when Camoron lit the blue touch paper with his' terrorist sympathisers' comment, what a class act he is.......! I'm not a pacifist, if required I would fight for my country. I want to defeat ISIS (or whatever their called), but I also understand that in order to defeat ISIS in a war theatre you need troops on the ground, bombing is an isolated plan of attack does not work. But sending our troops to war, and a lot of our troops will die, does not garner popularity and win votes for the PM. Cameron has played a great card convincing those who dont get it, that bombing will help us to become victorious, it wont, and the MP's who colluded, whatever their political leanings have also popped a small feather in their caps because by colluding they have impressed the easily impressed.
Comments
Most of the criticism of them is that they undercount civilian casualties...
From all I can see, the little weasel-word "reported" is the only thing holding together the flimsy suggestion that there have been no reported civilian deaths as a result of the UK's bombing in Iraq.
Nevertheless, somewhere like Raqqa won't be the same as Iraqi positions, for reasons outlined by PragueAddick above.
The western nations have zero long term strategy either, which worries me. In the short term keeping Assad is probably the best of several bad choices, with a scheduled handover to the people within a number of years.
The most cynical, inept, hypocritical and counter-productive military gesture of modern times.
Our policy on Syria changes with the wind and this latest version will only create another generation of matyrs, heroes and jihadists and pour more petrol on the fire of a deadly and chaotic civil war of which we have little or no understanding or control.
Simultaneously banning UK citizens from leaving for Syria, bombing the Syrian people in situ and then begrudgingly accepting thousands of refugees and economic migrants from Syria to the EU in desperation is the politics of the mad house.
If this really is a war worth fighting and a war capable of being won, them let's at least fight it with our meagre forces decimated by defence cut after defence cut not just drop bombs on civilians from a great height and pretend that will make any positive difference. Will the IS/ISIL/ISIS/ Daesh fighters all be wearing day-glo jackets identifying themselves as evil decapitating terrorists as featured in the Daily Mail ?
Its a deep seated ideology and a fanaticism maturing for decades and ripened after the chaos caused by western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will it not be defeated with bombs.
Disgusted and depressed.
ISIS slaughter,rape, enslave
If not for the above then when ?
Over 300 terrorists have been banged up since 7/7. They are already at war with us.
It was 100 % right that it was a free vote and debated . For all you Corbynistas out there watch Hilary Bens statement and tell me how he is wrong ?
in terms of bombing population centres, which we haven't yet, but may do. Take raqqa as an example as we've just seen the tunnels etc so we know what their tactics will be. Do you really think that bombing it will make Christian and Shia people (if they've not been killed by daesh already) stand up and join daesh to fight the western invader? Really? I wouldn't say that is possible personally.
This is a horrible mess, that among many other reasons we have been partially responsible for creating. Adopting the CIA style tactics of encouraging civil unrest we put Syrian people in the way of assad's gas and barrel bombs, and in turn left the country weak and divided enough to allow daesh a strong foothold. By pulling back now we're leaving them to it, when we have the capability to end it.
We shouldn't have been meddling in the first place, but this is now, and we are here.
Has anyone said that the bombing is for peace?
I feel that bombing and only bombing isn't going to solve the issue. All it will do is add to the ever frightful skys over Syria.
I get told these bombs are precise. Well these bombs better be more accurate than the Americans precision bomb. One was aimed at a Taliban controlled area and managed to blow up a hospital in the city of Kunduz instead.
So innocent people will die.
There is no long term plan as how we then drive back isis on the ground. The US have been bombing for nearly a year and ISIS have become stronger since then.
We are relying on another set of fighters who have jihadists and extremists as part of their ranks and who might not want to even get involved.
Maybe the extremist part is not a problem as we keep arming Saudi Arabia.
And anyway why would this free Syria army want to fight this battle? they're against Assad (wasn't he the bad guy??) and his regime who the Russians support (and the americans covertly) and we probably do now as Assad fights against Isis.
There will be more refugees as houses will be hit by the bombing. (oh don't worry Turkey will take them. yeah, we trust them)
And what of Turkey? the country who is being fast tracked into the EU. we cant fight them, though it's known they pay isis for oil.
It's a fucking mess down there and unless we have actually got a plan and a well thought out one at that. (not just say, yeah bomb em a bit then free Syrian army or some other army will clear up the rest) we will be sucked into this black hole that will take many lives and add to the discredit that the western countries already have in the middle east.
It's all too late now though.
I want us to fight them I just feel that bombing is a thoughtless approach. We need to go all out or have some allies who will. Libyia, Iraq. We seem to be making the same mistakes over and over again.
Don't doubt though these missiles will hit some targets in the next few weeks and the media/conservatives will bang on about it as a told you so. I hope they're right and I'm wrong. I just cant help but see all the above and more as a reason why we need to act differently to what the government has proposed. and the history of previous doesn't help me change my mind.
What I'm yet to read is an effective alternative to combatting Daesh.
Please don't say cutting off funding and oil revenues because it is already being done.
Just waiting for the next attack in the UK or France etc (Which was gonna happen anyway IMO) and then for the "Well, you can't blame em can you" from the Corbynistas (Cheers again for that GH)
All the above, not fact, but my opinions
Apart from being a symptom of the modern obsession to get everything into a soundbite that will potentially go viral, which is dreadful and leads to lazy opinion forming. I believe we are bombing to rid the world of an evil scourge, but that's not going to lead to peace - it's going to get back to pre daesh in Syria and Iraq - hardly 'peace'.
But that is the problem when you decide to take up a military fight against a 'movement' and not a state army.
It's very very messy and rarely works.
Do we just count all those innocents as collateral in a need to destroy small parts of one threat? (A big threat of course)
It's a difficult argument in my head and I’m stuck asking 'Is it the right decision for right now?'
I guess only time will tell.
My fear is that this will increase the indoctrination rates and fuel the radicalisation of those seeing innocent casualties increase at allied forces hands.
People will want to inflict damage upon us in turn for innocents being killed.
Propaganda will paint us as purposefully massacring Syrian people. ISIS will no doubt say it's because we were targetting all Muslim.
This will in turn raise the threat against the UK.
More people in the UK will become fearful of innocent muslim people and target muslims and anyone who 'looks' muslim will be at risk... It's already happening.
It's my opinion that we have joined the war too late. That is pig head porker and his predecessors fault.
We and other allies should have stepped in when Assad started using chemical warfare against his own people.
We mourn those 130 killed in Paris weeks ago while thousands of civilians just as innocent are killed in Syria by ISIS, by Assad and by those participating in airstrikes now...
ISIS claim the Paris attacks killing innocents were for their religious cause.
The british government claim their killing of 'targets' that will result in innocent deaths are in order to stop ISIS... either way innocents die.
When you really think about it, the world is F'd up beyond belief right now.
Once established Daesh then began to sell their oil … but to whom - presumably people who are in cahoots with them.
We may be able to select targets and bomb them, but we can’t wipe away an ideology that is shared by so many. The whole thing is a complete mess. I’d rather see our money spent securing our borders and getting to grips with the enemy within.
If you have a small wasp nest in your attic and a huge wasps nest in a tree at the end of your garden or in your neighbors garden, you deal with the one in your attic first then worry about the one outside.
(apologies for over simplifying this)
Less innocents are likely to die that way and it should be a cheaper way to protect the British people.
As I said before we should have got involved when Assad used chemical weapons... at least then we would have had boots on the ground to help stop ISIS get into Syria so easily.
The other option would have been to not get involved at all.
I watched question time on the BBC last week, where Ken Livingstone was advocating getting troops in to remove IS. He understands it is the only way. But he also understands that how it is done is important. We need a global reaction, not a western one. He made the point about how linking our interests with oil helps the IS radicalisation process. He was attacked on the panel, for the ‘left’s insistance’ that it is our fault when it is the fault of the terrorists. Taking this stance is dangerous. We all know the terrorists are evil and IS manipulates, but we have to understand and learn. This means that the nations comprising the force that removes IS is important, if we are looking at finding a lasting peace beyond any conflict.
The goals of the mission are incredibly important. Are the Russians our allies or enemies in this? In a fight against IS, one ally has recently shot down a plane belonging to another! We have an aspiration to get rid of IS and Assad. But, no matter how despotic Assad is, can the rival religions factions that despise each other and make up Syria come together? Have we not learned from Iraq?
So we have voted for air strikes. This time next year we will still be bombing Syria – probably creating more terrorists and being no nearer to the solution. We have to do this properly! The vote is tokenism anyway, as we were bombing IRAQ. We could have upped our output there and the Americans could have stepped a proportion of IRAQ down to compensate, and deployed it to Syria. It is all about posturing, and not about substance. And if anybody took the trouble to listen, that is Corbyn's point!
When ?
for Paris ?
or the 30 Brits in Egypt ?
or for the 10,000 executed by these scum?
When ?
Its ok to "intervene" when we send millions of pounds in "aid" but its "Imperialist" if we attack a Death Cult !!
we wont be safer in the Uk for bombing Syria--thats just horse shit, but every Jihadi ISIS murderer killed by the RAF is one less scum bag on this planet and thats a good thing end of.
His take on the refugee crisis this summer was truely enlightening, and I 100% agree with him there.